Activated charcoal is as effective as fuller's earth or bentonite in paraquat poisoning

Okonek, S.; Setyadharma, H.; Borchert, A; Krienke, E. G.

doi:10.1007/bf01715588

Cited by 31 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…When the contaminated feed and biochar were administered separately, DDT intake was not reduced as both the Dieldrin and DDT were probably absorbed by the oral mucosa already and not only in the digestive tract (Fries et al, 1970). Activated biochar also showed very good in vitro adsorption properties for the herbicide Paraquat (Okonek et al, 1982; Gaudreault, Friedman & Lovejoy, 1985), which has been banned in the EU since 2007 but is still legal in the US and other countries.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The use of biochar in animal feeding

Schmidt¹,

Hagemann

Draper

et al. 2019

PeerJ

134

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Biochar, that is, carbonized biomass similar to charcoal, has been used in acute medical treatment of animals for many centuries. Since 2010, livestock farmers increasingly use biochar as a regular feed supplement to improve animal health, increase nutrient intake efficiency and thus productivity. As biochar gets enriched with nitrogen-rich organic compounds during the digestion process, the excreted biochar-manure becomes a more valuable organic fertilizer causing lower nutrient losses and greenhouse gas emissions during storage and soil application. Scientists only recently started to investigate the mechanisms of biochar in the different stages of animal digestion and thus most published results on biochar feeding are based so far on empirical studies. This review summarizes the state of knowledge up to the year 2019 by evaluating 112 relevant scientific publications on the topic to derive initial insights, discuss potential mechanisms behind observations and identify important knowledge gaps and future research needs. The literature analysis shows that in most studies and for all investigated farm animal species, positive effects on different parameters such as toxin adsorption, digestion, blood values, feed efficiency, meat quality and/or greenhouse gas emissions could be found when biochar was added to feed. A considerable number of studies provided statistically non-significant results, though tendencies were mostly positive. Rare negative effects were identified in regard to the immobilization of liposoluble feed ingredients (e.g., vitamin E or Carotenoids) which may limit long-term biochar feeding. We found that most of the studies did not systematically investigate biochar properties (which may vastly differ) and dosage, which is a major drawback for generalizing results. Our review demonstrates that the use of biochar as a feed additive has the potential to improve animal health, feed efficiency and livestock housing climate, to reduce nutrient losses and greenhouse gas emissions, and to increase the soil organic matter content and thus soil fertility when eventually applied to soil. In combination with other good practices, co-feeding of biochar may thus have the potential to improve the sustainability of animal husbandry. However, more systematic multi-disciplinary research is definitely needed to arrive at generalizable recommendations.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The use of biochar in animal feeding

Schmidt¹,

Hagemann

Draper

et al. 2019

PeerJ

134

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Hladik and Gueguen (1974) first proposed that clays were protective against plant secondary compounds consumed by primates, and Profet (1992) suggested that clays could be protective against human teratogens. A number of clays found in geophagic earths are capable of binding pathogens, including viruses (Lipson and Stotzky 1983;Rey 1989;Dornai et al 1993), fungi (Smith and Carson 1984;Lavie and Stotzky 1986a,b;Phillips et al 2008), and bacteria (Maigetter and Pfister 1975;Said et al 1980;Ditter et al 1983;Gardiner et al 1993), as well as toxins, including poisonous herbicides (Okonek et al 1982;Lotan et al 1983), pharmaceuticals (Tsakala et al 1990), and plant secondary compounds (Johns 1986;Johns and Duquette 1991;Gilardi et al 1999;Houston et al 2001;Dominy et al 2004). It is also possible that earth inhibits larger pathogens (e.g., geohelminths) from colonizing hosts (Krishnamani and Mahaney 2000) although the mechanism by which this occurs has not been elucidated.…”

Section: The Hypothesesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Why On Earth?: Evaluating Hypotheses About The Physiological Functions Of Human Geophagy

Young¹,

Sherman²,

Lucks³

et al. 2011

The Quarterly Review of Biology

118

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Geophagy has been hypothesized to be an adaptive behavior, either as a means to allay nutrient deficiency or to protect against ingested pathogens and toxins. Others have proposed that geophagy is non-adaptive, occurring either to allay hunger or as an epiphenomenon of nutrient deficiencies. This paper evaluates these hypotheses using 482 published cultural-level accounts of human geophagy and 330 accounts of geophagy among 297 species of mammals, birds, and reptiles. Information was extracted from reports of human geophagy to permit statistical analysis; reports of non-human geophagy were tabulated. Human geophagy did not parallel changes in nutrient requirements, occurred most frequently among children and pregnant women and in tropical areas (where pathogen densities are highest), and was associated with ingestion of toxic substances and gastrointestinal distress. Earth ingested by humans was craved and carefully selected and prepared; it had high clay content, but few bioavailable mineral nutrients. In primates, geophagy was associated with both protection from toxins and obtaining nutrients, whereas in other vertebrates it was associated mainly with obtaining nutrients. Our results indicate that human geophagy is best explained as providing protection from dietary chemicals, parasites, and pathogens, whereas animal geophagy may involve both micronutrient acquisition and protection.

show abstract

“…We avoided gastric lavage due to the corrosive nature of the poison. Activated charcoal (1-2 g/kg) and Fuller’s earth (1-2g /kg) with 70% sorbitol are generally used for gastric decontamination [ 13 ]. However, there is no specific antidote for paraquat poisoning.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Paraquat Poisoning Associated With Daisley Barton Syndrome: A Case Report

Kaeley¹,

Prasad²,

Kabi³

et al. 2021

Cureus

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Pesticides include insecticides, herbicides, and rodenticides. Pesticide poisoning can be intentional, accidental, or occupational. Around 385 million cases of unintentional acute pesticide poisoning occur annually worldwide, with approximately 11,000 fatalities. Herbicides are used to kill weeds and can include chlorophenoxy compounds, bipyridyls, urea-substituted herbicides, organophosphates, and glyphosate. Paraquat is a bipyridyl nonselective contact herbicide with high mortality rates upon exposure in humans. Paraquat poisoning causes acute lung injury, rarely leading to pneumothorax and pneumomediastinum, referred to as Daisley Barton Syndrome. We report a case of a 22-year-old female from Uttarakhand, India, who accidentally ingested paraquat. She was initially asymptomatic, but later developed lung, liver, and kidney injuries as well as pneumomediastinum and pneumothorax.

show abstract

Activated charcoal is as effective as fuller's earth or bentonite in paraquat poisoning

Cited by 31 publications

References 9 publications

The use of biochar in animal feeding

The use of biochar in animal feeding

Why On Earth?: Evaluating Hypotheses About The Physiological Functions Of Human Geophagy

Paraquat Poisoning Associated With Daisley Barton Syndrome: A Case Report

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About